MY DEAR FRIEND: I received yesterday your letter of the 20th March, from
Manheim, with the inclosed for Mr. Eliot; it was a very proper one, and I
have forwarded it to him by Mr. Harte, who sets out for Cornwall tomorrow
morning.
I am very glad that you use yourself to translations; and I do not care
of what, provided you study the correctness and elegance of your style.
The “Life of Sextus Quintus” is the best book of the innumerable books
written by Gregorio Leti, whom the Italians, very justly, call ‘Leti caca
libro’. But I would rather that you chose some pieces of oratory for your
translations, whether ancient or modern, Latin or French, which would
give you a more oratorical train of thoughts and turn of expression. In
your letter to me you make use of two words, which though true and
correct English, are, however, from long disuse, become inelegant, and
seem now to be stiff, formal, and in some degree scriptural; the first is
the word NAMELY, which you introduce thus, YOU INFORM ME OF A VERY
AGREEABLE PIECE OF NEWS, namely, THAT MY ELECTION IS SECURED. Instead of
NAMELY, I would always use WHICH IS, or THAT IS, that my-election is
secured. The other word is, MINE OWN INCLINATIONS: this is certainly
correct before a subsequent word that begins with a vowel; but it is too
correct, and is now disused as too formal, notwithstanding the hiatus
occasioned by MY OWN. Every language has its peculiarities; they are
established by usage, and whether right or wrong, they must be complied
with. I could instance many very absurd ones in different languages; but
so authorized by the ‘jus et norma loquendi’, that they must be submitted
to. NAMELY, and TO WIT, are very good words in themselves, and contribute
to clearness more than the relatives which we now substitute in their
room; but, however, they cannot be used, except in a sermon or some very
grave and formal compositions. It is with language as with manners they
are both established by the usage of people of fashion; it must be
imitated, it must be complied with. Singularity is only pardonable in old
age and retirement; I may now be as singular as I please, but you may
not. We will, when we meet, discuss these and many other points, provided
you will give me attention and credit; without both which it is to no
purpose to advise either you or anybody else.
I want to know your determination, where you intend to (if I may use that
expression) WHILE away your time till the last week in June, when we are
to meet at Spa; I continue rather in the opinion which I mentioned to you
formerly, in favor of The Hague; but however, I have not the least
objection to Dresden, or to any other place that you may like better. If
you prefer the Dutch scheme, you take Treves and Coblentz in your way, as
also Dusseldorp: all which places I think you have not yet seen. At
Manheim you may certainly get good letters of recommendation to the
courts of the two Electors of Treves and Cologne, whom you are yet
unacquainted with; and I should wish you to know them all; for, as I have
often told you, ‘olim haec meminisse juvabit’. There is an utility in
having seen what other people have seen, and there is a justifiable pride
in having seen what others have not seen. In the former case, you are
equal to others; in the latter, superior. As your stay abroad will not
now be very long, pray, while it lasts, see everything and everybody you
can, and see them well, with care and attention. It is not to be
conceived of what advantage it is to anybody to have seen more things,
people, and countries, than other people in general have; it gives them a
credit, makes them referred to, and they become the objects of the
attention of the company. They are not out in any part of polite
conversation; they are acquainted with all the places, customs, courts,
and families that are likely to be mentioned; they are, as Monsieur de
Maupertuis justly observes, ‘de tous les pays, comme les savans, sont de
tous les tems’. You have, fortunately, both those advantages: the only
remaining point is ‘de savoir les faire valoir’, for without that one may
as well not have them. Remember that very true maxim of La Bruyere’s,
‘Qu’on ne vaut dans se monde que ce qu’on veut valoir’. The knowledge of
the world will teach you to what degree you ought to show ‘que vous
valez’. One must by no means, on one hand, be indifferent about it; as,
on the other, one must not display it with affectation, and in an
overbearing manner, but, of the two, it is better to show too much than
too little. Adieu.